Technical information: (202) 691-6392 USDL 09-0506
http://www.bls.gov/mls/
For release: 10:00 A.M. (EDT)
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 Tuesday, May 12, 2009
EXTENDED MASS LAYOFFS IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2009
Employers initiated 3,489 mass layoff events in the first quarter
of 2009 that resulted in the separation of 558,909 workers from their
jobs for at least 31 days, according to preliminary figures released
by the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Both
the number of extended mass layoff events and associated separations
reached their highest first quarter levels in program history (with
data available back to 1996), and both measures more than doubled
from the first quarter of 2008. (See table A.)
The number of separations reached first quarter program highs in 12
of 18 major industry sectors, all 4 geographic regions, and 32 states.
Separations due to business demand reasons (especially slack work/in-
sufficient demand) set a program high, while those associated with fi-
nancial issues reached a high for the first quarter. Each category
more than tripled over the year. Twenty-seven percent of employers
reporting an extended layoff in the first quarter of 2009 indicated
they anticipated some recall of workers, the lowest proportion in pro-
gram history. First quarter 2009 layoff data are preliminary and are
subject to revision. (See the Technical Note.)
The national unemployment rate averaged 8.8 percent, not seasonally
adjusted, in the first quarter of 2009, up from 5.3 percent a year
earlier. Private nonfarm payroll employment, not seasonally adjusted,
decreased by 3.1 percent (-4,342,000) over the year.
Industry Distribution of Extended Layoffs
Manufacturing firms reported 1,380 extended mass layoff events
involving 215,281 separations, the highest first quarter levels for
____________________________________________________________
| |
| Upcoming Changes to the Extended Mass Layoffs Release |
| |
| Changes will be introduced with the issuance of 2nd |
| quarter 2009 preliminary extended mass layoff data sched- |
| uled for release on Wednesday, August 12, 2009. For fur- |
| ther information on these changes, see the note on page 9. |
| |
|____________________________________________________________|
- 2 -
Table A. Selected measures of extended mass layoff activity
Period Layoff events Separations Initial claimants
2005
January-March .......... 1,142 186,506 185,486
April-June ............. 1,203 246,099 212,673
July-September ......... 1,136 201,878 190,186
October-December ....... 1,400 250,178 246,188
2006
January-March .......... 963 183,089 193,510
April-June ............. 1,353 295,964 264,927
July-September ......... 929 160,254 161,764
October-December ....... 1,640 296,662 330,954
2007
January-March .......... 1,110 225,600 199,250
April-June ............. 1,421 278,719 259,234
July-September ......... 1,018 160,024 173,077
October-December ....... 1,814 301,592 347,151
2008
January-March (r) ...... 1,340 230,098 259,292
April-June (r) ......... 1,756 354,713 339,574
July-September (r) ..... 1,582 290,892 303,774
October-December (r) ... 3,585 642,154 762,737
2009
January-March (p) ...... 3,489 558,909 542,023
r = revised.
p = preliminary.
the industry on record (with data available back to 1996). Manufac-
turing industries were responsible for 40 percent of private nonfarm
extended layoff events and 39 percent of related separations in the
first quarter of 2009. A year earlier, manufacturing made up 31 per-
cent of events and 37 percent of separations. (See table 1.) The
largest numbers of separations within manufacturing were associated
with transportation equipment manufacturing (65,304, mostly associated
with automobile manufacturing) and computer and electronic products
manufacturing (23,706).
In the first quarter of 2009, 12 major industry sectors reported
first quarter program highs in terms of the number of worker separa-
tions--mining; construction; manufacturing; wholesale trade; transpor-
tation and warehousing; finance and insurance; real estate and rental
and leasing; professional and technical services; management of com-
panies and enterprises; administrative and waste services; educational
services; and accommodation and food services.
- 3 -
Table B. Distribution of extended layoff events and separations by
economic reason categories, January-March 2009(p)
Layoff events Separations
Category
Number Percent Number Percent
Total .................. 3,489 100.0 558,909 100.0
Business demand ............. 1,921 55.1 279,022 49.9
Organizational changes ...... 183 5.2 41,409 7.4
Financial issues ............ 392 11.2 89,487 16.0
Production specific ......... 15 0.4 3,944 0.7
Disaster/safety ............. 5 0.1 478 0.1
Seasonal .................... 316 9.1 47,598 8.5
Other/miscellaneous ......... 657 18.8 96,971 17.4
p = preliminary.
Reasons for Extended Layoffs
Among the seven categories of economic reasons for extended mass
layoffs, business demand factors (contract cancellation, contract
completion, domestic competition, excess inventory, import competition,
and slack work) accounted for 55 percent of the events and 50 percent
of separations during the first quarter of 2009. This compared to 45
percent of events and 40 percent of separations in the same period a
year earlier. (See table 2.) Separations related to these business
demand factors more than tripled over the year from 91,585 to 279,022,
with those due to slack work/insufficient demand/nonseasonal business
slowdown increasing from 56,494 to 211,168.
Extended mass layoffs stemming from financial issues (bankruptcy,
cost control, and financial difficulty) sharply increased from 122
events associated with 26,859 separations in the first quarter 2008
to 392 events and 89,487 separations in the first quarter 2009. Re-
tail trade accounted for the largest number of separations due to fi-
nancial issues, mostly in electronics and appliance stores and in gen-
eral merchandise stores.
Movement of Work
In the first quarter of 2009, 77 extended mass layoffs involved
the movement of work and were associated with 12,736 separated workers.
(See table C.) A year earlier, there were 59 layoff events and 13,314
separations associated with the movement of work. These movements of
work were to other domestic locations or to locations outside of the
U.S., and they occurred either within the same company or to other com-
panies. Movement of work layoffs accounted for 2 percent of nonseasonal
layoff events in the first quarter of 2009. (See table 10.)
Among the 77 extended mass layoff events with reported relocation
of work in the first quarter of 2009, 45 percent were permanent clo-
sures of worksites, which affected 5,711 workers. In comparison,
10 percent of the total extended mass layoff events reported for the
quarter involved the permanent closure of worksites and affected
90,960 workers.
Of the layoffs involving the movement of work, 75 percent of the
events and 77 percent of the laid-off workers were from manufacturing
industries during the first quarter. (See table 7.) Among all pri-
vate nonfarm extended layoffs, manufacturing accounted for 40 percent
of the events and 39 percent of separations.
- 4 -
Table C. Extended mass layoff events and separations, selected measures,
first quarter 2009(p)
Action Layoff events Separations
Total, private nonfarm ................ 3,489 558,909
Total, excluding seasonal and
vacation events (1) ............... 3,173 511,311
Total events with movement
of work (2) ................... 77 12,736
Movement of work actions ...... 105 (3)
With separations reported .. 70 7,295
With separations unknown ... 35 (3)
1 The questions on movement of work were not asked of employers when the reason
for layoff was either seasonal work or vacation period.
2 A layoff event can involve more than one movement of work action.
3 Data are not available.
p = preliminary.
In the total private nonfarm sector, 55 percent of the extended mass
layoff events were because of business demand changes. Similarly, such
reasons accounted for 49 percent of layoff events associated with work
relocation and resulted in 5,345 separations during the first quarter.
(See table 8.)
Among the regions, the Midwest accounted for the largest proportion
of workers affected by extended mass layoffs associated with the move-
ment of work (44 percent) followed by the South (26 percent) and the
West (21 percent). (See table 9.) Among the 50 states and the District
of Columbia, Illinois accounted for the largest proportion of workers af-
fected by extended mass layoffs associated with the movement of work
(18 percent), followed by California (11 percent) and Texas (9 percent).
Some extended mass layoff events involve more than one relocation
of work action. For example, an extended mass layoff event at an
employer may involve job loss due to movement of work to both another
domestic location of the company and a location out of the country;
this would be counted as two movement of work actions. The 77 extended
layoff events with movement of work for the first quarter of 2009 in-
volved 105 identifiable relocations of work. An identifiable reloca-
tion of work occurs when the employer provides sufficient information
on the new location of work and/or the number of workers affected by
the movement. Of the 105 relocations, employers were able to provide
information on the specific number of separations associated with the
movement of work component of the layoff in 70 actions involving 7,295
workers. (See table 10.)
Of the 70 actions where employers were able to provide more complete
separations information, 93 percent of relocations occurred within the
same company and 71 percent were domestic reassignments. (See table D.)
Domestic relocation of work affected 3,829 workers, and out-of-country
relocations were associated with 3,466 separations, less than 1 percent
of all nonseasonal and nonvacation extended mass layoff separations.
(See table 11.)
- 5 -
Table D. Movement of work actions by type of separation where the
number of separations is known by employers, first quarter 2009(p)
Activities Actions(1) Separations
With separations reported .......... 70 7,295
By location
Out-of-country relocations ....... 20 3,466
Within company ................ 20 3,466
Different company ............. - -
Domestic relocations ............. 50 3,829
Within company ................ 45 3,483
Different company ............. 5 346
By company
Within company ................... 65 6,949
Domestic ...................... 45 3,483
Out of country ................ 20 3,466
Different company ................ 5 346
Domestic ...................... 5 346
Out of country ................ - -
1 Only actions for which separations associated with the movement of
work were reported are shown.
p = preliminary.
Recall Expectations
Twenty-seven percent of employers reporting an extended layoff in
the first quarter of 2009 indicated they anticipated some type of
recall, down from 40 percent a year earlier and the lowest proportion
in program history (with data available back to 1995). (See table E.)
Of those employers expecting to recall workers, a program low 20 percent
indicated that the offer would be extended to all displaced employees,
and 63 percent of employers anticipated extending the offer to at least
half of the workers. Sixty-one percent of employers expecting to recall
laid-off employees intend to do so within 6 months. Excluding layoff
events due to seasonal work and vacation period, in which 89 percent of
the employers expected a recall, employers anticipated recalling laid-off
workers in 21 percent of the events.
Size of Extended Layoffs
The average size of a layoff (as measured by separations per layoff
event) in the first quarter of 2009 was 160, compared to 172 per layoff
in first quarter 2008. Layoff events continued to be concentrated at
the lower end of the extended layoff-size spectrum, with 49 percent of
events involving between 50 and 99 workers and 71 percent of events with
less than 150 workers. Similarly, the proportion of events involving
more than 500 workers, less than 4 percent, is the lowest proportion
for any quarter since the program began.
- 6 -
Table E. Summary of employer expectations of a recall from extended layoff,
first quarter 2008 - first quarter 2009
Percentage of events
Nature of the recall I II III IV I
2008 2008 2008 2008(r) 2009(p)
Anticipate a recall ............. 40.1 51.1 28.6 42.8 26.9
Timeframe
Within 6 months ............. 69.8 84.5 71.0 77.4 60.7
Within 3 months .......... 45.4 59.1 53.8 34.0 38.8
Size
At least half ............... 73.2 88.3 77.0 77.6 62.6
All workers .............. 28.5 51.7 37.6 35.4 19.7
r = revised.
p = preliminary.
Layoffs involving between 50 and 99 workers accounted for 21 percent
of all separations during the period, and layoffs with less than 150 sep-
arated workers accounted for 37 percent. These proportions are up from
18 and 35 percent respectively from a year earlier. Separations involving
500 or more workers accounted for 25 percent of all separations in the
first quarter of 2009, down slightly from a year earlier. (See table F.)
Initial Claimant Characteristics
A total of 542,023 initial claimants for unemployment insurance
were associated with extended mass layoffs in the first quarter of
2009. Of these claimants, 13 percent were black, 15 percent were
Hispanic, 33 percent were women, 34 percent were 30 to 44 years of
age, and 18 percent were 55 years of age or older. (See table 3.)
Among persons in the civilian labor force for the same period, 11
percent were black, 14 percent were Hispanic, 47 percent were women,
33 percent were age 30 to 44, and 19 percent were 55 years of age or
older.
Geographic Distribution
Among the 4 census regions, the West recorded the highest number of
separations (174,526) due to extended mass layoff events in the first
quarter of 2009, followed by the Midwest with 170,062. All regions
reported first quarter program highs in terms of the number of worker
separations (with data available back to 1996). (See table 4.) Among
the 9 census divisions, the highest number of separations during the
first quarter of 2009 was in the Pacific division (140,311). The East
North Central division had the next highest level of separations, with
139,795. (See table 4.) All divisions, except the East South Central,
reported their highest first quarter number of separations in program
history.
- 7 -
Table F. Distribution of extended layoff events by size of layoff,
first quarter 2009(p)
Layoff events Separations
Size
Number Percent Number Percent
Total ..................... 3,489 100.0 558,909 100.0
50-99 ................... 1,725 49.4 120,085 21.5
100-149 ................. 742 21.3 87,518 15.7
150-199 ................. 366 10.5 61,373 11.0
200-299 ................. 343 9.8 79,657 14.3
300-499 ................. 188 5.4 68,369 12.2
500-999 ................. 86 2.5 58,626 10.5
1,000 or more ........... 39 1.1 83,281 14.9
p = preliminary.
California recorded the largest number of worker separations
(115,014), followed by Michigan (46,817), Illinois (41,887), and Texas
(33,005). (See table 5.) After excluding the impact of seasonal rea-
sons, California still reported the highest number of job cuts (108,899).
Thirty-two states reported first quarter program highs in terms of num-
bers of separations--Alaska, Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida,
Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Forty-three percent of extended mass layoff events and 39 percent
of separations (218,194) occurred in metropolitan areas in the first
quarter of 2009, compared with 49 percent of events and 45 percent of
separations (104,617) during the first quarter of 2008. Among the 372
metropolitan areas, Detroit-Warren-Livonia, Mich., reported the highest
number of separations (14,781) in the first quarter of 2009. Next were
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, Ill.-Ind.-Wis., with 13,647 separations and
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, Calif., with 10,594 separations. (See
table G.) Employers located in nonmetropolitan areas separated 50,262
workers in extended mass layoffs.
- 8 -
Table G. Mass layoff events and separations, selected metropolitan areas
Events Separations
Metropolitan area I I I I
2008(r) 2009(p) 2008(r) 2009(p)
Total, nonmetropolitan areas .................... 122 392 19,690 50,262
Total, 372 metropolitan areas ................... 661 1,513 104,617 218,194
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, Mich. ............... 26 57 4,426 14,781
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, Ill.-Ind.-Wis. ... 47 87 7,711 13,647
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, Calif. .... 86 100 13,416 10,594
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island,
N.Y.-N.J.-Pa. ......................... 47 61 9,204 8,688
Las Vegas-Paradise, Nev. ....... 6 55 1,126 8,367
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, Calif. ....... 39 50 4,764 7,736
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, Texas ........... (1) 26 (1) 7,184
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas .......... 6 18 1,159 4,784
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington,
Minn.-Wis. ............................ 9 37 1,250 4,172
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, Calif. .... 19 38 2,250 4,107
1 Data do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.
r = revised.
p = preliminary.
NOTE: The geographic boundaries of the metropolitan areas shown in this table are
defined in Office of Management and Budget Bulletin 09-01, November 20, 2008.
Note
The quarterly series on extended mass layoffs cover layoffs of at
least 31-days duration that involve 50 or more individuals from a single
employer filing initial claims for unemployment insurance during a con-
secutive 5-week period. Approximately 30 days after a mass layoff is
triggered, the employer is contacted for additional information. Data
for the first quarter are preliminary and subject to revision. This
release also includes revised data for previous quarters. Data are not
seasonally adjusted, but survey data suggest that there is a seasonal
pattern to layoffs. Thus, comparisons between consecutive quarters
should not be used as an indicator of trend.
For additional information about the program, see the Technical Note.
______________________________
The report on Mass Layoffs in April 2009 is scheduled to be released on
Friday, May 22, 2009.
- 9 -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Upcoming Changes to the Extended |
| Mass Layoffs News Release |
| |
| The following changes will be introduced with the issuance of 2nd quarter |
| 2009 preliminary extended mass layoff data scheduled for release on Wednesday, |
| August 12, 2009. |
| |
| --Tables B-D will be dropped, as the information is replicated within the |
| current numbered tables 2, 10, and 11, respectively. |
| |
| --Table E will become the new table 11. This table will be expanded to show |
| the recall expectations of employers disaggregated by whether extended lay- |
| off events were due to seasonal/vacation factors or nonseasonal factors. |
| |
| --Table F will become table 13. |
| |
| --Table G will undergo a conceptual change and will become a new table B. |
| Currently this table reflects a concept of "worksite location," where the |
| numbers of extended layoff events and associated separated workers are |
| displayed by the metropolitan statistical area where the event occurred. |
| This concept of "worksite location" will be replaced by a "separated worker |
| residence" concept, where the number of initial claimants associated with |
| extended layoffs will be displayed by the metropolitan statistical area |
| where the separated workers reside. This conceptual change will result in |
| more complete information on layoffs in metropolitan areas. |
| |
| --Table 6 will be dropped from the news release as there is often only a small |
| amount of layoff activity in these IT-producing industries. This table |
| will be provided as a supplemental table on the Mass Layoff Statistics |
| Web site at http://www.bls.gov/mls/#tables. Tables 7-11 will be renum- |
| bered tables 6-10. |
| |
| --A new table, table 12, will be added to the release displaying the average |
| size of layoff events by industry and reason for layoff. |
| |
| --The explanatory language in the body of the news release regarding movement |
| of work data will be transferred to the Technical Note. |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
